4.2 Article

Cartilage and Fascia Graft In Type 1 Tympanoplasty: Comparison of Anatomical and Audological Results

期刊

JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 E297-E300

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000005278

关键词

Cartilage graft; fascia graft; tympanoplasty

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tympanoplasty is a surgical procedure aiming to reconstruct the tympanic membrane and hearing. The aim of this study was to compare anatomic and audiological results of cartilage graft with temporal fascia graft in type 1 tympanoplasty patients. We conducted a descriptive, retrospective study of medical records of patients who underwent tympanoplasty between January 2010 and December 2015 at the Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery of Farhat Hached University Hospital. In total, we obtained 46 patients. Twenty-three patients who underwent type 1 cartilage tympanoplasty using cartilage graft were compared with 23 patients in whom temporal muscle fascia was used. In follow-up, residual perforation occurred in 1 of 23 patients (4.3%) undergoing cartilage tympanoplasty and in 2 of 23 patients undergoing fascia tympanoplasty (8.7%), which was found to be statistically non significant (P > 0.05). In both cartilage and fascia groups, when they were compared in terms of gain, no significant difference was found between groups (P = 0.271), air bone gap gain was found to be 12.9 +/- 9.9 decibels in cartilage group, whereas it was 10 +/- 6.6 decibels in fascia group. Operation success is defined by successful anatomical and functional outcome. Among all patients, 35 (76%) were reported to have operation success. It was established that type of operation had no significant influence on success (P = 0.73). Currently, there is an increasing interest in using cartilage grafts in primary tympanoplasty. Especially, in patients with severe middle ear pathology, cartilage graft should be used routinely without risk on influencing audiological results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据